Re: WiFI on utility poles

[Scott Helms <khelms () zcorum com>]

We should all be complaining, vociferously, about LTE-U.  I've seen the
tests and as it exists today LTE-U completely creams WiFi and is only
usable by someone who owns a LTE license.  WiFi APs will cohabitate fairly
well, even if they share the same channel, because WiFi is a listen before
transmitting protocol.  LTE and LTE-U is a centrally scheduled protocol and
doesn't have a back off mechanism.


Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000
--------------------------------
http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
--------------------------------

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Yury Shefer <shefys () gmail com> wrote:

> And the same guys (NCTA) complain about LTE-U - how dangerous it is for
> their s/business/WiFi
>
>
> http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/08/verizon-and-t-mobile-join-forces-in-fight-for-wi-fi-airwaves/
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:00 AM, Scott Helms <khelms () zcorum com> wrote:
>
> > This sounds like a hypothetical complaint, AFAIK none of the members of
> > the
> > CableWiFi consortium are deploying APs outside of their footprint.  Since
> > most of the APs use a cable modem for their backhaul it's not really
> > feasible to be without at least one broadband option (the cable MSO) and
> > be
> > impaired by the CableWiFi APs.
> >
> > Now, there is one potential exception to this I'm aware of which is
> > Comcast's Xfinity on Campus service, but I'd expect the number of colleges
> > they're servicing that aren't already getting cable broadband service to
> > approach zero.
> >
> >
> > http://www.philly.com/philly/business/20150909_Comcast_streams_onto_college_campuses.html
> >
> > https://xfinityoncampus.com/login
> >
> >
> > Having said all of that, I'd agree that a good radio resource management
> > approach would benefit all of us, including the CableWiFi guys.
> >
> > http://www.cablelabs.com/wi-fi-radio-resource-management-rrm/
> >
> >
> > Scott Helms
> > Vice President of Technology
> > ZCorum
> > (678) 507-5000
> > --------------------------------
> > http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
> > --------------------------------
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Jared Mauch <jared () puck nether net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > > On Sep 10, 2015, at 9:00 AM, Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 5 GHz noise levels affecting people whose primary means of Internet
> > > access is via fixed wireless .
> > > >
> > >
> > > This is a huge deal for those people like myself that depend on fixed
> > > wireless for access at home because there is no broadband available
> > despite
> > > incentives given by cities and states and the federal government.
> > >
> > > The local WISPs are good at coordinating access in these ISM bands
> > amongst
> > > themselves but when someone appears with a SSID without doing a peek at
> > the
> > > spectrum (note: not a site survey, but actual spectrum view w/
> > waterfall,
> > > as site survey only checks for the channel width that the client radio
> > is
> > > configured for, not al the 10, 15, 8, 30mhz wide variants).
> > >
> > > It’s just poor practice to show up and break something else because you
> > > can’t be bothered to notice the interference or noise floor you
> > created.  I
> > > suspect the hardware that Comcast is using doesn’t notice this
> > interference
> > > or adjacent channel issues.  With the FCC aiming to let cell carriers
> > also
> > > clog the 5ghz ISM band it’s only going to get worse.
> > >
> > > - Jared
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Yury.